There wasn't enough evidence of collusion, but he's guilty because the evidence wasn't found?
or
He's guilty until its proven he's innocent?

as a fellow kiwi I thought we were a little more logical than this, I'm struggling with your position here.

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign.

It doesn't fit the definition of collusion, and Trump himself was distanced from it.

Needless to say, no one was going to get convicted of collusion because it isn't a US Federal offense.

So, evidence was found of communications between the Trump campaign staff and Russians. At that time, Trump was denying strenuously those
communications, which he knew were happening.

No one got charged with collusion because it isn't a Federal crime (have I said that enough yet for it to gain traction?).

But Trump clearly lied and acted guilty, repeatedly and publicly. He didn't collude (because its BS), he wasn't charged with anything. But he did lie
to everyone.

Trump also wasn't the target of the Mueller investigation, for reasons that Mueller explains in the report. Yet Trump's "witch hunt" protestations
seem to indicate that he thought that they were going to get something on him.

There were no FISA warrants against Trump or his family.

There were no loud allegations even from the legal and investigative side (that was all the press). There was no legal disruption to prevent Trump
from doing his day to day work as President (despite the "how could he be effective when he was being targeted in a witch hunt" BS).

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign.
Nope
Fbi agents and american citizens
Read up its all being exposed
Entrapment is illegal

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign.
Nope
Fbi agents and american citizens
Read up its all being exposed
Entrapment is illegal

Pitching for building a Trump tower in Moscow. Didn't work out, but the meeting happened.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nope
Not involved in the beginning of the investigation bra
Your confused and jumbling all the facts and timelines
Sorry the sloppy she will win fbi/cia/doj left a paper trail.
Just tonight it was exposed the fbi was informed the dossier was not verified BEFORE they gave it to a fisa court as such.

Its ovah bra.
You picked the losers to defend.
The bad orange man wins again.

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign.
Nope
Fbi agents and american citizens
Read up its all being exposed
Entrapment is illegal

Pitching for building a Trump tower in Moscow. Didn't work out, but the meeting happened.

Yeah this one time this one guy talked to a russian....
Lol
Not illegal bra
They weren't trying to steal hillarys election

Lolololo
Throw it all against the wall kiwi surely some of it will stick...

Nope
Not involved in the beginning of the investigation bra
Your confused and jumbling all the facts and timelines
Sorry the sloppy she will win fbi/cia/doj left a paper trail.
Just tonight it was exposed the fbi was informed the dossier was not verified BEFORE they gave it to a fisa court as such.

Its ovah bra.
You picked the losers to defend.
The bad orange man wins again.

So you mean you have been commenting on all of these threads about the mueller report, and you are unaware that in the us legal system there is a
presumption of innocence?

That is unfortunate

Cite the statute, then.

Well the Us system is based on English common law. That has the tradition of the presumption of innocence, as I would think someone as invested in
the US legal system and investigation such as you would know.

Its why you must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminally, because you are otherwise deemed innocent.

And although this was the norm from the founding of our constitution, there have been court cases that exactly laid this out.

Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

…

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement
lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the
accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the
proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of
the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the
one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by
instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other
words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the
principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and
indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.